This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Texas secession?

Originally Posted by Quantrill

Explain, if you can.

Quantrill

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.[1]

Which would appear to suggest that slavery was fairly central as far as southerners where concerned, even if the motivations of many in the North where not as noble as they are cracked up to be.

Re: Texas secession?

Originally Posted by Canell

Wouldn't a share of $16 trillion national debt hurt Texas as well?

That's not Texas' debt to pay.

Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24"True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

AUSTIN — GOP stalwarts in Texas have three major problems with their arrangements at the Republican National Convention in Florida: location, location, location.
Relegated to “the boonies” at a remote golf resort, state leaders face a logistical headache 25 miles from the Tampa convention hall. Worse, they said, it sends a message to the largest Republican state in the nation that, like convenience store wine for a birthday gift, it doesn’t count for much.
“If I weren’t state chairman, if I were a delegate, I probably wouldn’t go,” state GOP leader Steve Munisteri said of the late-August presidential nominating event.
It is a steep fall from grace. For years, having a Bush as either vice president or president meant the Lone Star State was pampered with prime hotels and choice seating.
Munisteri said the state’s political donors, volunteers and activists are being taken for granted. Others suspect Rick Perry’s failed presidential bid — and attacks on eventual nominee Mitt Romney — are bringing punishment upon the Texas GOP.
Convention lodging is more than a matter of inconvenience or prestige. The parties must figure out how to transport hundreds of delegates for four days of events, when cities are bulging with traffic and visitors. They have to arrange for meals and events, and distance often equals higher costs.
And like proximity to the corner office, four-star hotels near the hall and close-in floor seating are more than perks. They’re signs of which states carry heft, importance and political clout.
At least the situation is something that the state’s Republicans and Democrats can finally agree on. For years, Texas Democrats — with no hope of delivering the state for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry or Barack Obama — have found themselves on the outskirts of conventions.
It’s been only recently that they’ve done better than airport hotels. This year they’ll actually be closer to their convention site in Charlotte, N.C. — 15 miles away — than the Republicans will be from theirs in Tampa. Both delegations are still in different counties from the convention halls.
“They’re used to the red carpet,” Dallas County Democratic Party Chairwoman Darlene Ewing said of the Republican delegates. “Well, come join us in the cheap seats, guys.”
Pecking order
The top spots at national conventions always have gone to the nominee’s home state. Also high on the list are the important swing states; lavishing attention is part of getting the party stalwarts active and motivated. Important states also get star treatment, and then, up in the rafters and out in the ’burbs, it’s usually the can’t-win-there-but-thank-you-for-coming states.
James Davis, a spokesman for Republican convention planners, discounted such calculations and said the hotel assignments were allotted based on the size of the delegation, price ranges, room availability and special needs.
“Texas is one of the larger delegations. And this was the first convention that we did not have to split a delegation into two hotels,” Davis said. “That’s important because a lot of delegations meet together and travel to the convention together.”
He said the Saddlebrook Resort, where the Texans will be, “is a great place. Our staff has had meetings there.”
Davis declined to address whether Texas was being slapped for considering a winner-take-all primary to boost Rick Santorum’s candidacy or because of the strained Perry-Romney relationship.
“We made the assignments based on not splitting the delegations and trying to meet their requirements,” he repeated.
Eric Opiela, who is charged with coordinating arrangements for the Texas delegation, said the site is a hardship. He likened the situation to attending a Dallas convention but “having our hotel Red Oak. That’s essentially what they’ve done to us.”
The only other delegation out that way is Louisiana’s.
“I don’t know what crime they committed to be out there with us,” Opiela said.
Because Saddlebrook is a golf resort, some of the hotel rooms are a half-mile from the resort’s meeting rooms, where breakfasts and other gatherings take place. That hike in August for some older delegates will be difficult, he said.
Opiela said one normally reliable corporate sponsor has declined to support the delegation this year, which he attributes to the inconvenience of the location. “What sponsor wants to be 30 miles away?” he said.
“I’m sure it’s a fabulous place from the pictures I’ve seen. But I’d be just as happy staying at the Holiday Inn if it were closer,” he said.

Re: Texas secession?

Originally Posted by phattonez

We should let Texas go peacefully.

These things aren't necessary. All can be provided privately.

We'll see how that works out in L.A. then Texas can give it a shot. If you think that social programs can be just stopped, especially education...you'll see chaos. Restructured, yes. Stopped, no. That's opinion you hold on this matter (ed. medicare and aid) has been propaganda delivered to you by people who don't know what the **** they are talking about. Social services...have been created by "All factions" in government, whether they be conservative or liberal and have brought our country to its knees. If you believe a conservative ANYTHING in any political machine or government office who would automatically change our way of life over night...or through one or two terms in office. Then you are an extremely naive person, indeed.

I don't believe any party or faction in government today has any allegiance to the American people. If you don't know that by now...keep on dreaming and token on whatever is distorting your understanding of what's going on in our government.

I'm no spring chicken and I supported the "Republican Party" for about 2/3rds of my voting life. Now...I don't support any party.

“The final key to the way I promote is bravado,” Donald Trump wrote in his 1987 book, “The Art of the Deal.” “I play to people’s fantasies.”

Re: Texas secession?

Originally Posted by Centinel

I'd love to see your evidence that the states gave up their sovereignty by entering into an compact with each other. States enter into treaties and compacts all the time. They do not automatically give up their sovereignty by doing so.

You are not honest when you frame this as states entering into a compact with each other. You are forgetting a very important other entity to which they joined with and agreed to the terms of the Constitution in doing so. And in doing so they gave up some of their own powers, their own authority and their own sovereignity.

It was either that or lose the USA.

They made the wise choice.

__________________________________________________ _
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Re: Texas secession?

Originally Posted by TNAR

The states delegated various specific powers to the federal government. In no way does this action repeal or limit sovereignty. Furthermore, any power which has been delegated may be un-delegated in the future.

del·e·gateverb \-ˌgāt\
: to entrust to another

Sure - it means exactly the opposite of what you state it does. You give up power to somebody else - you give up authority to somebody else. But they gained in gaining a nation with a sustainable government.

__________________________________________________ _
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Re: Texas secession?

It sure is. They are Americans and as such they owe it as much as any other American. Divide it up according to the number of citizens they have and you have the figure that Texas owes the USA.

__________________________________________________ _
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Re: Texas secession?

Originally Posted by Henrin

No, I don't think I'm using it wrong at all. You are placing more authority than they deserve on them so you don't need to debate. While they surely have authority you can't very well trump authority of the founders with them. What the founders said the clauses mean is still the factor that will decide if the courts got it right and everything here points them NOT getting it right.

You can THINK anything you want to think.

You can BELIEVE anything you want to believe.

Neither of those things changes the fact that you are grossly misusing APPEAL TO AUTHORITY and I gave you the reference to prove it to you.

It is clear that you lack formal debate training. It is clear that you lack an actual understanding of logical fallacies. It is clear that you are ignorant of the actual use of Appeal To Authority and fail to understand that one can use it and it is deemed proper and a perfect tactic in debate.

You may want to go back and review the article I provided to help educate and illuminate you.

__________________________________________________ _
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers